Argumentation in Journalism
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper aims to contribute to an understanding of the politicians’ burden of proof in political interviews by explaining how politicians attempt to delimit the burden of proof which they acquire for their standpoints in response to criticism. As politicians always want to give a positive evaluation of their activities, they respond to the critics by delimiting their burden of proof in such a way that their standpoints are easy to defend. The research question to be answered is: How do politicians expediently delimit their burden of proof in political interviews in response to criticism? First, the author characterizes political interviews as accountability practices which by virtue of their institutional traits impose limits on the politicians’ burden of proof. Second, the author explains some of the possibilities for delimiting the burden of proof in the communicative practices at issue by analyzing in detail several fragments from a political interview.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Andone, C
    2013Argumentation in Political Interviews. Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to Accusations of Inconsistency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.5 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bovens, M
    2006 “Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework”. European Law Journal13 (4): 447–468. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0386.2007.00378.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Clayman, S. , and J. Heritage
    2002The News Interview. Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  4. Eemeren, F.H. van
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Eemeren, F.H. van and P. Houtlosser
    2002 “Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof”. InAdvances in Pragma-dialectics, ed. by F.H. van Eemeren , 13–28. Amsterdam/Newport News, Virginia: Sic Sat/Vale Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fetzer, A
    2007 “Well if that had not been True, that would have been Perfectly Reasonable: Appeals to Reasonableness in Political Interviews”. Journal of Pragmatics39 (8): 1342–1359. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fraser, N
    1992 “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy”. Social text25/26: 56–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Houtlosser, P
    2002 “Indicators of a Point of View”. InAdvances in Pragma-dialectics, ed. by F.H. van Eemeren , 169–184. Amsterdam/Newport News, Virginia: Sic Sat/Vale Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kauffeld, F.J
    2007 “The Burden of Proof: A Macro or a Micro Level Concept?” InReason Reclaimed, ed. by H. Hansen and R. Pinto , 65–73. Newport News, Virginia: Vale Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Montgomery, M
    2007The Discourse of Broadcast News. A Linguistic Approach. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Mulgan, R
    2003Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781403943835
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403943835 [Google Scholar]
  12. Rescher, N
    1977Dialectics. A Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State Universiy of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2006Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511498848
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498848 [Google Scholar]
  14. Walton, D.N
    1988 “Burden of Proof”. Argumentation2: 233–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): burden of proof; political interview; strategy
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error